Hellman v. Schneider

Citations

• 75 Ill. 422

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery jurisdiction—remedy at lam — interpleader. Where a bill in equity showed that the complainant employed one B to do certain work in the erection and completion of a house, for which he was to pay $6,075, that he had made payments amounting to $5,883.72 ; that B failed to comply with the terms of the contract, and did not complete the work to be by him performed, in a careful, skilful and workman-like manner, specifying particularly wherein he so failed; that complainant was damaged thereby $1,000, and much more than otherwise would be due under the contract, and that there was nothing due to B; also charging, that since such payments, the complainant had received notices from many persons claiming liens as sub-contractors, whose claims amounted to $4,500, and that they have brought suits against him, and that he was not liable to any of them, and that B was insolvent, and praying for an account to be taken to ascertain if he owed any thing, and, if so, that the same be apportioned between the several claimants: Held, that the facts alleged did not bring the case within any recognized principle upon which either a bill for interpleader, or bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader, would lie, and that upon the facts stated his defense was complete to each of the suits against him.</p> <p>2. Parties in chancery — reforming contract for mistake. On bill to reform a contract on the ground of an alleged mistake therein, the other party to such contract is a necessary party, and if the bill is dismissed as to him, no relief can be had.</p>